Appellant's Statement of the Issues:
I. Did Elizabeth Onstad have a meaningful opportunity to be heard on her application to be her mother's guardian?
II. Should Doris Onstad, the proposed ward, have been present at the guardianship hearings?
III. Did the Court fail to prepare findings as required by Rule 52, N.D.R.Civ.P.?
IV. Was the clear and convincing standard of proof met?
V. Was the Order of June 10, 2004 signed in violation of Rule 63, N.D.R.Civ.P.?
VI. Was the Conditional Order of Eviction of November 16, 2004 defective for violation of res judicata, NDCC 33-06-04, incorrect assumption of jurisdiction, and failure of notice?
VII. Was the guardians' determination to evict Elizabeth in the best interest of the ward?
VIII. Did Elizabeth present a timely claim for priority of appointment?